Podein25 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Are we talking unknown unobservables/immeasurables or known unobservables/immeasurables? I'm thinking known ones. But who knows eh?Larry Robinson, career, +730Bobby Orr, career, +597Ray Bourque, career, +528Wayne Gretzky, career, +518Bobby Clarke, career, +506 Bums, all of them! Clarkie's presence on that list is particularly noteworthy: the only other forward (an achievement in itself) and one who played (mostly) in a different era than Gretzky when the scoring was lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Stats are supposed to be a statement of fact. If it doesn't tell the full story for all players, it is of no use to me. VLC scored 20 goals last year, so he must be an effective player! Jakub Voracek had two giveaways last night, so he's not good with the puck! Steve Mason had an .875 SV% so he's not very good at stopping pucks! LA outshot the Flyers and the Flyers won so shots on goal don't matter! That is, unless individual stats by themselves don't tell the full story... Seriously, that bolded quote there is a completely ridiculous statement that you'd take issue with in a heartbeat if someone else said it. No stat "tells the full story for all players" nor should one ever be expected to. Stats are all part of a larger picture - one which MUST include non-statistical analysis as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old School Hockey Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Stats???? Who cares?Stats have kept guys like Datsyuk from getting an MVP. But I bet Datsuyk wouldn't trade his two SC's for Ovechkin's MVP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Seriously, that bolded quote there is a completely ridiculous statement that you'd take issue with in a heartbeat if someone else said it. No stat "tells the full story for all players" nor should one ever be expected to. I thought that he meant that tongue in cheek until I scrolled up a read it. Yikes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 But I bet Datsuyk wouldn't trade his two SC's for Ovechkin's MVP. Don't let phlfly see you write that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I'm not sure where all the mind-blowing is coming from. Nobody I know ever took plus/minus as anything but a proxy. By definition, a proxy in statistics is "a variable that is not in itself directly relevant, but that serves in place of an unobservable or immeasurable variable. In order for a variable to be a good proxy, it must have a close correlation, not necessarily linear or positive, with the variable of interest." So, we could debate whether plus/minus is a good or bad proxy, which is kind of what we've been doing in this thread, since Corsi also is a proxy as far as I can tell. But maybe we could dispense with the hyperbole and straw-man arguments? One of the things that made plus/minus a good proxy, I would submit, is precisely it's simplicity - you were either on the ice or you weren't when a goal was scored. Kids just learning the game could understand it easily. Even the dumbest hockey players can count. In my experience, plus/minus served a very useful accountability function within a team, from the time I was very young to this day. Because, regardless of it's flaws, to be a consistently minus hockey player, over the course of a season, is to be either extraordinarily unlucky or, more likely, lazy and indifferent to the defensive side of the puck. And while a player could point to a particular play where they were unlucky and got a minus, I could always point to the several plays where they failed to pick up a man, didn't try, acted selfishly etc etc. In short, I could point to several plays where their actions were directly responsible for the puck going in our net. In all those cases they not only deserved a minus (plus a slap in the head), but that minus was a very good proxy indeed. Well I hate to be the one to break this to you sport, but is larger than you and the people you know. There's articles written by professional sports writers on why the stat is useless. In order for them to have that opinion, somebody has to be putting value you on it. It's likely people you don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 VLC scored 20 goals last year, so he must be an effective player! Jakub Voracek had two giveaways last night, so he's not good with the puck! Steve Mason had an .875 SV% so he's not very good at stopping pucks! LA outshot the Flyers and the Flyers won so shots on goal don't matter! That is, unless individual stats by themselves don't tell the full story... Seriously, that bolded quote there is a completely ridiculous statement that you'd take issue with in a heartbeat if someone else said it. No stat "tells the full story for all players" nor should one ever be expected to. Stats are all part of a larger picture - one which MUST include non-statistical analysis as well. I'd high five somebody if they said what I said, because it's awesome (and more importantly screams common sense). You know what else VLC did last year? Scored a measly 37 points and played 69 games. If you're going to use stats, be a big boy and use them all. Handpicking a specific one and saying, "See, that's what you said" is called a lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I don't know about anyone else but calling some one sport when talking sports is amusing. Anyway, just because SOMEONE wrote an article about it doesn't mean they are correct. It's just an opinion... And rads stats are correct and varied in subject. You chose to focus only on the VLC thing. So, you kinda handpicked also. Besides (and I do speak from very recent experience on this), no one is gonna win the stats argument one way or the other. But anyway, batter up (sports pun intended)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old School Hockey Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Don't let phlfly see you write that!So I'd have to ask why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 He's an interesting character. Very pro OV. If you see the phrase "G is suk" it started with him... Hang around and you will see what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 I don't know about anyone else but calling some one sport when talking sports is amusing. Anyway, just because SOMEONE wrote an article about it doesn't mean they are correct. It's just an opinion... And rads stats are correct and varied in subject. You chose to focus only on the VLC thing. So, you kinda handpicked also. Besides (and I do speak from very recent experience on this), no one is gonna win the stats argument one way or the other. But anyway, batter up (sports pun intended)! I thought so too, but that's probably obvious given that I'm the one that said it. While true, it holds a little more water than "Well I don't know anybody who thinks this way", which was Monsieur Podein's argument. Logic like that has no place in any conversation outside of a school yard. I didn't handpick anything, I'm not the one who brought VLC up. That was rad and his "he scored 20 goals, so he must be a good player" argument. I, on the other hand, pointed out the rest of his stats, which when you look at them tell a more accurate story than simply putting words into someone's mouth to make your case (like rad did with me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 simply putting words into someone's mouth to make your case (like rad did with me). I put your own words in your own mouth. Just because you want to change what you said, doesn't change that. You know what else VLC did last year? Scored a measly 37 points and played 69 games. If you're going to use stats, be a big boy and use them all. Handpicking a specific one and saying, "See, that's what you said" is called a lying. I quoted you directly. You didn't say anything about "all the stats" you said, specifically Stats are supposed to be a statement of fact. If it doesn't tell the full story for all players, it is of no use to me. "It" is a singular pronoun. You were referring to a singular stat. It is obvious from your context. Moreover, you even acknowledge that stats by themselves don't tell the full story, which again contradicts your quoted position. You can change the story now, but I think you might call that "lying" In the end, though, you agree with me that there is more to analysis than a stat and whether "it" tells "the full story". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 I put your own words in your own mouth. Just because you want to change what you said, doesn't change that. I quoted you directly. You didn't say anything about "all the stats" you said, specifically "It" is a singular pronoun. You were referring to a singular stat. It is obvious from your context. Moreover, you even acknowledge that stats by themselves don't tell the full story, which again contradicts your quoted position. You can change the story now, but I think you might call that "lying" In the end, though, you agree with me that there is more to analysis than a stat and whether "it" tells "the full story". No you didn't. I never said any of these things: VLC scored 20 goals last year, so he must be an effective player! Jakub Voracek had two giveaways last night, so he's not good with the puck! Steve Mason had an .875 SV% so he's not very good at stopping pucks! LA outshot the Flyers and the Flyers won so shots on goal don't matter! But that didn't stop you from presenting it as my argument. As a great man once said, "Show me where I said that?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 No you didn't. I never said any of these things: No, you didn't. And there is nothing that says you did. You made that up and said I did it when I didn't. I specifically quoted what you said and then took your meaning that if a stat ("it") "doesn't tell the full story" then it "is of no use to me". Those are EXAMPLES of why no stat "tells the full story for all players" which you specifically said if it doesn't "it is of no use to me." Which you agree with, despite what you said in the first place. You can continue to try to twist yourself into a knot to get out of what you said in the first place, but you still said it. It's still there. And you're doubling down on it. You could just admit that what you said in the first place was absolutely ridiculous - or at the very least phrased incredibly badly. Because it was. You don't need to claim that you're being misquoted when you're the one doing the misquoting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 No, you didn't. And there is nothing that says you did. You made that up and said I did it when I didn't. I specifically quoted what you said and then took your meaning that if a stat ("it") "doesn't tell the full story" then it "is of no use to me". Those are EXAMPLES of why no stat "tells the full story for all players" which you specifically said if it doesn't "it is of no use to me." Which you agree with, despite what you said in the first place. You can continue to try to twist yourself into a knot to get out of what you said in the first place, but you still said it. It's still there. And you're doubling down on it. You could just admit that what you said in the first place was absolutely ridiculous - or at the very least phrased incredibly badly. Because it was. You don't need to claim that you're being misquoted when you're the one doing the misquoting. Except for the fact you tried to present that as my rationale, you're absolutely right. No, those were examples of how to make a really bad argument. I ain't doubling down on sh-t - I'm look at the whole picture. When you came forward with that "VLC scored 20 goals last year, VLC must be a good player" nonsense (because that's what it was), I came back at you with more stats, because do tell the whole story. You're actually wrong. I'm not agreeing with you. Stats (real ones, not Corsi or +/-) do tell the whole story, you just have to look at them all. That cherry picking crap, and then trying to pass it off as the meat and potatoes is some Busch League sh-t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 While true, it holds a little more water than "Well I don't know anybody who thinks this way", which was Monsieur Podein's argument. Logic like that has no place in any conversation outside of a school yard. You are predictable and boring. I'll go read something else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 @idahophilly I just find it disrespectful of people who learned whatever they think they know about hockey from the Internet to be so snotty about people's experience with the game. I know that people find it arrogant when people like me say: "I've played the game, and you don't know what you're talking about." But I feel like it's the only response to this kind of crap. I was an average hockey player in many ways, not good enough to make it to the pros, but I have played against many who did make it: Theo Fleury, Eddie Belfour, Mike Keane to name a few. I've played against thousands of players over the years, many of them elite level. But buddy knows better because he googled something. I guess that's the world we live in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 @idahophilly I just find it disrespectful of people who learned whatever they think they know about hockey from the Internet to be so snotty about people's experience with the game. I know that people find it arrogant when people like me say: "I've played the game, and you don't know what you're talking about." But I feel like it's the only response to this kind of crap. I was an average hockey player in many ways, not good enough to make it to the pros, but I have played against many who did make it: Theo Fleury, Eddie Belfour, Mike Keane to name a few. I've played against thousands of players over the years, many of them elite level. But buddy knows better because he googled something. I guess that's the world we live in... Welcome to the interwebs. Keep in mind, many of us who have been around here for a while (and I'm sure some who haven't) can generally tell when (farm animal proclivities notwithstanding) someone really knows what he/she is talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Welcome to the interwebs. Keep in mind, many of us who have been around here for a while (and I'm sure some who haven't) can generally tell when (farm animal proclivities notwithstanding) someone really knows what he/she is talking about. That's why I can't stand it when newbies come on here and act like this. I know, I know, everyone is entitled to their opinion and it's just a hockey discussion but is it really? He has made his point, he thinks C is Suk. OK, I accept that is his misguided point of view. Then you get 10-15 others that shoot holes in his theories and everyone is wrong, according to him. If I were him, I'd take pause to consider why everyone else is saying I'm off base. So, hence my statement that he is boring and predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Welcome to the interwebs. Yeah. On a positive note, I have found some awesome halibut recipes! Plus, some of the funniest people on the planet, such as yourself fine sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Yeah. On a positive note, I have found some awesome halibut recipes! Plus, some of the funniest people on the planet, such as yourself fine sir. hmmm Halibut and Applebees...what a great combo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 You are predictable and boring. I'll go read something else... Well the same can't be said about you, can it? That was certainly "interesting" and rather out of the blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 @idahophilly I just find it disrespectful of people who learned whatever they think they know about hockey from the Internet to be so snotty about people's experience with the game. I know that people find it arrogant when people like me say: "I've played the game, and you don't know what you're talking about." But I feel like it's the only response to this kind of crap. I was an average hockey player in many ways, not good enough to make it to the pros, but I have played against many who did make it: Theo Fleury, Eddie Belfour, Mike Keane to name a few. I've played against thousands of players over the years, many of them elite level. But buddy knows better because he googled something. I guess that's the world we live in... The fact that you bring this up, and do it so often, is a testament to your lack of confidence and knowledge. You resort to the lowest common denominator type of response because you are not confident in your thoughts about the game or your ability to communicate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 ( Yaawnnn ) Whatever, this topic is kinda over so if you want to keep it going knock your socks off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.